See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273576894

The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees’ performance in Telecom

Engineering companies

Conference Paper · April 2015

CITATION READS

1 39,682

3 authors, including:

Ali orozi Sougui

Melbourne Institute of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Impact of Leadership on Employee Motivation in Malaysian Telecommunication Sector View project

COMPACT MICROSTRIP BAND-PASS FILTER FOR EMI REDUCTION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali orozi Sougui on 19 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(4) April 2015, Pages: x-x

AENSI Journals
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

Journal home page: www.ajbasweb.com

The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees’ performance in

Telecom Engineering companies

Ali Orozi Sougui*1, Abdul Talib Bon 2, Hussein Mohamed Hagi Hassan3
1, 2, 3
Faculty of Technology Management and Business, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Malaysia
1
University Of N'Djamena, Chad, N'Djamena, Tchad
aliorozi@yahoo.com

ARTICLE
INFO ABSTRACT
Article history: Management today‟s world is about management in times of rapid change. The need to develop better
Received 23 leadership styles is becoming increasingly important in all organizations. The purpose of this work is
February 2015 to ascertain if there is a relationship between the leadership styles and the employees‟ performance,
Accepted 23 April
particularly in the Telecom Engineering companies, meanwhile to determine the relationships between
2015
Available online leadership styles and employees' job performance through the mediators: employees' motivation, job‟s
30November 2015 satisfaction; whether these relationships will be stronger for Transformational than for Transactional
leaders, Laissez-Faire leaders or Servant leaders. This project reviews as well four recent and widely
Keywords: utilized leadership styles: transformational leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership, and
Leadership, Laissez-faire leadership. There is a lack of total agreement in the reviewed literature as to the best
employees’ leadership style to be used. Transformational theory is considered by many to be an improvement to
performance, the transactional theory of leadership. There appears to be an ever increasing number of studies
HRM ,
supporting the benefits of the transformational theory. In today‟s ever changing climate, there are some
Motivation,
Satisfaction researchers whose findings suggest the optimal leadership style may be a blend of Servant,
transactional and transformational styles. Quantitative research method would be practice in this
research. The questionnaires will be distributed only to employees in the Telecom Engineering
companies. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and SPSS are approach which will be used as a tool
to analyze the results in future in this research, due to the complexity of the model and the limitation of
multi dimension analysis tools in quantitative research such as multiple regressions, factor analysis,
and discriminant analysis. A proposed theoretical framework of this work has been decorticated in this
paper.

© 2013 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.

To Cite This Article: Ali Orozi Sougui., The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees‟ performance in Telecom Engineering companies.
Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 7(13): x-x, 2015

INTRODUCTION

The conceptual framework for this study is done from management and organizational behavior theory. The
focus of this study is on leadership styles and their impact on employees‟ performance. Leadership is a function
of management; leadership styles have their effect on group or individual within an organization. Leadership is
the process of initiating group activities toward goal setting and goal attainment.
Human resource is one of the prime capitals of any organization, which is not only to improve the outcome but
also to compete with others. Hence, to improve the performance of the employees is one of the most important
goals of our today‟s organizations. In recent years, both academicians and practitioners have highly recognized
the significance of effective employees and good leadership in the firm‟s performance (Kehoe and Wright,
2013). Furthermore, organizational performance depends on the performance of the people in that organization.
As we used to say group performance depends on the individual performance. Among the objectives of any
organization are profit making and attainment of maturity and liquidity status. In reaching of the objectives of
the organization, it allocates scarce resources to competing ends. The successes of the organizations contribute
Corresponding Author:. Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication
process. Ensure that Name of University, Name of Department, Name of Faculty, Box.3030. City. Country. Phone numbers (with
country and area code) are provided in addition to the e-mail address and the complete postal address
2 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

to the growth of the economy in general and the society in particular, by providing jobs, service and goods
which will boost up the economy in large.
In addition, Leadership is conceived as a process where one or more people influence a group of person
to move in a certain direction. The term leadership has been utilized in various aspects of human endeavor such
as politics, business, academics and social works. The leader of the company or organization has as well
important role on the performance of its followers in his or her organization (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson,
2002). Leadership, and the study of it, has begun with the history of civilization, the function of the leader has
been extremely crucial since in the prehistoric time, like the era of Sun Tzu in China, during the Islamic
revolution around 1436 years ago in Arabic peninsula, the time of Mahatma Gandhi in India, Nelson Mandela,
Kwame Nkrumah and Tomas Sankara in Africa, up to present. One major contributor to this era of management
and leadership theory that was built by Max Weber, a German sociologist who observed the parallels between
the mechanization of industry and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of organization (Morgan, 1997, p. 17;
Stone et al., 2005). He has highlighted that the bureaucratic form standardized the process of administration in
the same manner that the machine standardized production Stone et al. (2004).

BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH

Leadership is very difficult to define, many scholars they defined in their ways (Russell, 2005). Russell
(2005) suggests leadership is the “interpersonal influence exercised by a person or persons, through the process
of communication, toward the attainment of an organization‟s goals” (Russell, 2005, p. 16). Furthermore, Rue
and Byars (2009) define leadership as “the ability to influence people to willingly follow one‟s guidance or
adhere to one‟s decisions” (Rue and Byars, 2009, p. 465). Northouse (2012) defines leadership as a “process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2012, p. 5).
According to McGregor (1960; (Stone and Patterson, 2005)), the traditional organization with its centralized
decision making, hierarchical pyramid, and external control of work is based on certain assumptions about
human nature and human motivation. There are numerous styles of leadership but for this study, the
transformational, transactional, laissez-faire and servant leadership style are considered. The transformational
leadership style is more innovative, productive, effective, and satisfying to followers as both parties work
towards the good of organization propelled by shared visions and values as well as mutual trust and respect
(Avolio et al., 1991).
Transactional leadership style as opined by Burns (1978) indicated that transactional leaders are those
who sought to motivate followers by appealing to their self-interests. These leaders motivate followers to
achieve expected levels of performance by helping them to recognize task division, identify goals and strength
the relation about meeting wanted performance level (Bass and Avolio, 1990), while laissez-faire style is totally
passive leadership and servant leaders care deeply about people. They seek to remove the barriers and obstacles
that hold others back from achieving their full potential (Thornton, 2013).
Performance is the ratio between output and total of factors required to achieve it. Performance is
efficiency in individual production. It is a multinational factor in companies, in which it could be usually
improved by employees‟ efforts. The relationship between leaders‟ behavior or the leadership style and workers
has gained increased attention from the community. The type of leadership style has impact on how
organizations cope with improving productivity; the Transformational leadership style has a crucial function in
improving productivity by way of improved marketability and creating strategic vision of the organization.
Leadership style influences the overall operational performance of efficiency, effectiveness, income,
colossal market share and as well as the organization commitment to achieve the goal. Behind the surprise of
any organization‟s performance today is the leadership style adopt by the organization. Productivity in every
company is generally focused on labor performance, perhaps human-labor is the universal key resources
required of any organization and the assertion that a critical element in all successful productivity effort today
has been due to good leadership style.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Nowadays, the transformation and innovation of public and private sector have raised a great concern on the
outcome and the way of leading (Bass et al., 2003). In every organization, public or private, its aim is to achieve
better results. A good number of researchers have shown that job or work performance and leadership are very
crucial in our societies (Ogbonna and Harris, 2000). In addition, to improve the quality of the work or to
3 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

enhance the performance it is very challenging for every leader. Furthermore, they are many variables that have
direct or indirect impact on the workers or employees‟ performance, such as motivation, satisfaction, trust,
justice, ethics and many more. However, all these variables can be manipulated by the head of the organization
which is the leader. Hence, the leader is key person to the success or failure of the institution or even an entire
nation (Ather and Sobhani, 2007; Fiedler and E, 1996; Ogbonna and Harris, 2000); as mention in the study done
by the great author in leadership Bernard M. Bass that 45% to 65% of the overall factor of the success or failure
are based on the leaders (Obasan Kehinde and Hassan Banjo, 2014) (Bass and Stogdill, 1990). Moreover, the
styles of the leader have effect on the employees‟ behaviour and on the adoption of the strategies of the
company (Alexandrov et al., 2007; Jerotich, 2013).
Leadership is one of the most important in our social live to enhance the performance (Ather and
Sobhani, 2007; Hafeez et al., 2012) then, to scrutinize the impacts of the leadership styles on the employees
performance has a great significance to our today‟s society. Few leaders understand the full significance of how
influential their leadership styles are on the performance and satisfaction of their employees. Leadership is the
main weapon of the organization, through better leadership; managers can achieve their organizational goals and
productivity as well as the workers‟ productivity. Positive leadership influences has a big impact on the workers
and the turnover the organization. Motivation will lead the performance of the organization. The study will help
in recommending a leadership framework that can suite to achieve a better employees' performance in Chad,
and which leadership styles will be more effective and relevant with their organization. Hence, our main aim is
to explore the relationship between leadership styles, employees‟ satisfaction, motivation, and performance.
The limited or inconclusive character of research findings in this area suggests the need to investigate
further the nature of the relationship between leadership and employees‟ performance. The problem is there are
lack of research on leadership‟s impact on the workers‟ performance and the moderating role of motivation, and
satisfaction to the employees‟ performance within Chad. Due to the limited or inconclusive character of research
in the area of leadership and performance, Ogbonna and Harris (2000) suggested for further investigation in the
above mentioned areas. The research done in South Africa by Hayward et al. (2008) has drawn an attention to
the need for research to explain deeply the importance of leadership in employees' performance. Due to cultural
impacts on the research, it is not possible just to use some theories based only on the western society. However,
very few researches were done on leadership and employees in Africa but the case of Chad not even single
research has been investigated the impacts of the leadership styles on the employees‟ performance. Hence, our
research will focus only the impact of leadership style in Chadian engineering companies. The object on the
inquiry is to ascertain the most favorable leadership style amongst autocratic, democratic, bureaucratic, servant,
transformational, transactional and laissez faire, used in the case organization to determine its influence on
employees‟ performance through satisfaction and motivation.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to reach our objectives mentioned below, we will endeavor to answer the research questions:
1. What is the impact of leadership styles on employees' performance?
a) Is there a significant relationship between Transformational leadership style and workers' performance?
b) Is there a significant relationship between Transactional leadership style and workers' performance?
c) Is there a significant relationship between servant leadership style and workers' performance?
d) Is there a significant relationship between Laissez-Faire leadership style and workers' performance?
2. What is the impact of leadership styles on employees‟ satisfaction and motivation?
3. What is the mediating role of employees' motivation between leadership and employees‟ performance?
4. What is the mediating role of employees' satisfaction between leadership and employees‟ performance?

OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the study is to investigate the effect of leadership styles on employees' performance.
The specific objectives of this study are:
1. To examine the impact of leadership styles on employees‟ performance.
a) To examine the effect of Transformational leadership on employees' performance.
b) To examine the effect of Transactional leadership style on employees' performance.
c) To examine the effect of servant style of leadership on employees' performance.
d) To examine the effect of laissez-faire style of leadership on employees' performance.
2. To investigate the impact of leadership styles on employees‟ motivation and satisfaction.
3. To scrutinize the mediating role of employees' motivation between leadership and employees‟ performance.
4. To scrutinize the mediating role of employees' satisfaction between leadership and employees‟ performance.
4 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

LITERATURE REVIEW

Now more than 3 decades of research and a number of meta-analyses have shown that transformational and
transactional leadership positively predict a wide variety of performance outcomes including individual, group
and organizational level variables (Bass and Bass, 2009). The nature of the work organization, styles of
leadership, the design and content of jobs can have a significant effect on the satisfaction of staff and their levels
of performance. House (1976) argues that leadership style affects followers‟ job satisfaction (Amin, 2012).
Leadership can be exhibited in a variety of ways and circumstances. Most of the people think that the
leader is only the county‟s president or prime minister, in short political leaders. However, leadership is not
limited only to political leaders. Mothers and fathers show leadership in raising their children with good values,
ethics and encouraging them to develop to their potential. Teachers show it in inspiring students to learn and to
develop their intellectual capacity. Health care workers can be leaders and develop services that meet the needs
of the communities they serve, or work in collaboration with other organizations to create cost effective,
prevention oriented programs and services, policemen use their leadership to protect the people and take the
security of the place; student‟s leader, team leaders etc.
Leadership is a prolific area of study with several theories, many reaching back decades, Lewin's
Leadership Styles which was developed by Kurt Lewin in 1930. He argues there are three major styles:
Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-faire. The theory of The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid, the Hersey-
Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, the Path-Goal Theory, the Six Emotional Leadership Styles, the
Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix in 2007, Transformational and transactional Leadership in 1978
by Burns and later developed by Bass in 1985, Servant leadership by Robert K. Greenleaf and many others.
However, no one style of leadership fits all situations, so it's useful to understand different leadership
frameworks and styles. You can then adapt your approach to fit your situation (Manktelow and Carlson, 2011).
Leadership is defined in many different ways, some says leader is someone with followers and other
defined as someone who motivate and influence people to accomplish a specific goal. Leadership is something
that people experienced or saw personally, every leader must have followers. A leader without follower is like a
car without tires; you may start the car but can‟t drive it to reach your destination. An organization to drive to its
goal, it must have a good leader that inspire, influence and motivate followers to reach the objective of the
organization. In short, leader must have a direction and move toward it. Leader without direction is aimless and
direction without movement is useless. A good leader will say “I want to go to this direction will you mind to
follow me” instead of saying “I want to go to this direction and you must follow me”. Leadership is the use of
power and influence to direct the activities of followers toward goal achievement. Power is the ability to
influence people‟s behavior and resist unwanted influence in return. In the other hand, leadership is the ability to
influence other; influence and power have moderate positive effect on the performance. Meanwhile, leadership
has effect on the follower‟s job performance, when used effectively; they can increase internalization and
compliance, which facilitates task performance. Hence, internalization and compliance facilitated by power and
influence can also increase citizenship behavior and decrease counterproductive behavior (Jason A et al., 2015).
The leader‟s thinking style or cognitive style influences as well the collective thinking processes of
everyone in the organization under his or her leadership. The “cognitive style” of the leader changes everything
he or she does, says and thinks. According to Warren Bennis, effective leaders are concerned with “doing the
right things” rather than “doing things right.” The right things are: creating and communicating a vision of what
the organization should be, communicating with and gaining support of multiple constituencies, persisting in the
desired direction and finally creating the appropriate culture and obtaining the desired results (Hitt et al., 2008).
The leadership styles in the organization have influence on the level of satisfaction. The research findings
showed that democratic or participative leadership as determinant of job satisfaction (Yahaya et al., 2012).
A leadership philosophy that draws upon virtue ethics will consider the nature of „perfect‟ and „imperfect‟
leadership. Whilst problematic, these notions have a certain resonance with the everyday experience of leaders.
We often know experientially when leadership is imperfect – when „wrong decisions‟ have been made, when
there has been a lack of justice, courage or balance (Price, 2006; Frost and Robinson, 1998; Maccoby, 2000;
Tourish and Pinnington, 2002). It is, of course, harder to conceive of or recollect examples of „perfect‟
leadership, but it is clear that the underlying philosophical questions problematize leadership in a manner that
has value and meaning. A consideration of virtue at the very least sensitises us to the idea of „good‟ and „bad‟
leadership in ways that differ qualitatively from a utilitarian analysis and discourse.
5 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

PERFORMANCE, MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION IN

ORGANIZATION:

EMPLOYEES' JOB PERFORMANCE

Understanding the concept of Job performance it is very important, first for every employee as well as every
manager. Hence, what is exactly mean by job performance? Is it a set of behaviours that someone does or it is
the final result of those behaviours? The authors Jason A et al. (2015) defined job performance as behaviour and
the term “results” or “job performance results” to describe the outcome from those behaviours. In sum, job
performance is defined as the value of the set of employee behaviours that contribute, either positively or
negatively, to the reach the organisation goal (Jason A et al., 2015). Work performance means the outcomes of
the employees about their work and objectives align with the organization‟s goals and objectives that are
achieved by the employees to work effectively, efficiently and motivation and work performance of the
employees measuring using different techniques of performance appraisal system. Currently most of studied are
conducting to measure the performance by reactions of user to performance appraisal (Khurram Zafar et al.,
2012).
The CEO of the Springfield Re-Manufacturing believed that if the employees know how their own
performance translated into the company‟s overall ability to compete, and if they have the authority to act on
that knowledge then the workers or the employees will start to think like leader and everyone will do the job as
it is his or her own company (O'Toole, 1999). Many researchers in the field of Organizational Psychology
focused on the relationship joining job performance and satisfaction (Yahaya et al., 2012). And find out that the
employees‟ performance depends on employees‟ satisfaction; this shows that the higher the level of job
satisfaction, the better the employees' performance (Insan et al., 2013). Boerner et al. (2007) stated a positive
relationship exists between transformational leadership and organizational performance as documented in
previous studies. They hypothesized that transformational leaders increase their followers‟ performance and
enhance followers‟ innovation. They also hypothesized the same would not hold true for transactional leaders.
In their study of 91 leaders in 91 German companies, their hypotheses were confirmed.

EMPLOYEES' JOB SATISFACTION

The term “job satisfaction” reflects a person‟s attitude towards their job and the organization and can be defined
as an employee‟s emotional reaction towards their work environment based on the evaluation of the actual
results against their expectations (McCann et al., 2014). Job satisfaction has been studied significantly in
organizational and industrial sciences since the 1930s (Chen, 2004). It has been for many decades a debate on
whether workers satisfaction has impact on the employee productivity or performance. The research has
suggested that the overall job satisfaction has a moderate impact on the people job performance (Rae, 2008)
(Jason A et al., 2015). Does the job satisfaction affect job performance or the other way around? They are
moderately related, it is mean that the employees' job satisfaction is related to job performance (Kinicki, 2013).
After measuring satisfaction broadly, the research has given as result that those companies with more satisfied
employees are more productive than those with less satisfied staffs (Yahaya et al., 2012). Furthermore, Insan et
al. (2013) showed that job satisfaction positively and significantly has impact on employees‟ performance. Jason
A et al. (2015) said that unfortunately, workplace surveys suggest that satisfied employees are becoming more
and more rare (Jason A et al., 2015).
Job satisfaction is one of the major individual mechanisms that directly affect the job performance.
Many researches have shown that if the employee is more satisfied with his or her job and experience positive
emotions during work, there is gigantesque chance that they may do better job and chooses to remain
committed. Job satisfaction can be defined as pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
someone‟s work or work experience. It represents how the employees think about their job. The employees
become more satisfied when they get what they value such as good environment, good wage, freedom or sense
of achievement and so forth. In sum, Rae Ander in her book on organizational behaviour defined job satisfaction
as a collection of attitudes about the various parts of the job (Rae, 2008). Job satisfaction has a moderate
positive effect on job performance. People who experience higher levels of job satisfaction tend to have higher
levels of task performance, higher levels of citizenship behaviour and lower levels of counterproductive
behaviour (Jason A et al., 2015, p.116).
The satisfaction depends from country to another, from city to another. According to Mwamwenda
(1995), said that it is about 50% of rural employees in South Africa are not satisfied with their work conditions,
6 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

another study of 13,832 worker in 23 countries by FDA international in 2007 showed that the employees in UK
and Ireland were the most satisfied and Asia was among the lowest (Yahaya et al., 2012). Besides, based on the
survey of 21 countries, the workers in Denmark were the most satisfied and UK was number 14th (Sousa-Poza
and Sousa-Poza, 2000). In addition, the work condition which is good, safe or stable and comfortable has good
relation with the job satisfaction (Yahaya et al., 2012). An investigation was conducted based the relationship
between environmental factors and job satisfaction that influence the employees discomfort in 4 manufacturing
company in Malaysia. The findings have shown that there is a correlation between the environment and job
satisfaction (Ismail et al., 2010). Based on a study done by Eskildsen et al. (2004) in the Scandinavian countries,
in that survey 9,623 employees from randomly selected households in the Nordic countries participated. Among
the findings are that Danish workers were found to be the most satisfied and that there is no difference between
the genders with respect to job satisfaction in that north part of Europe.

MOTIVATION
The study of motivation is concerned, basically, with why people behave in a certain way. The basic underlying
question is why do people do what they do? In general terms, motivation can be described as the direction and
persistence of action. It is concerned with why people choose a particular course of action in preference to
others, and why they continue with a chosen action, often over a long period and in the face of difficulties and
problems (Mullins, 2010). Bagraim (2003) emphasises that an effective manager must understand employees
and what motivates them, and that high levels of motivation are very important contributors to organizational
performance. Highly motivated employees strive to produce at the highest possible level and they exert greater
effort than employees who are not motivated. Bagraim adds that the characteristics of motivated employees are:
they always want to come to work; they want to be part of teams at work; they are interested in helping and
supporting others at work; and they generally exert greater effort in their work and contribute more in the
organization (Bagraim and Werner, 2003).
Porter and Lawer (1968) firstly defined the two categories of motivation “intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation” Intrinsic motivation defined as the motivators to do perform work its willingly while
extrinsic motivation define as to do perform work due to tangible reward or monetary compensation etc.
Subordinates may be satisfied with the both categories of motivation for improving their performance (Khurram
Zafar et al., 2012). There are many competing theories which attempt to explain the nature of motivation. These
theories help to explain the behavior of certain people at certain times. Any theory, which aids in understanding
how best to motivate people at work, is useful. Because of the complexity of motivation and the fact that there is
no ready-made solution or single answer to what motivates people to work well, all the different theories are
important to the manager. The existence of many theories shows that there are many motives which influence
people‟s behavior and performance (Mullins, 1996).
The first theory to be discussed is Fredrick Taylor (1911) scientific management theory. Taylor
believed that the only thing that motivates employees was “more money”. According to him, one had to devise a
way of tying the productivity of employees into the way they were paid. Taylor‟s approach was later criticized
for failing to recognize the complexity of human motivation. People are motivated by many factors, some of
which money provides and some of which it does not. The shortcomings in Taylor‟s theory led to the research
study on motivation referred to as “the Hawthorne studies” by Elton Mayo, (1924). The studies concluded that
man was a “social animal” and that basically man was motivated by social factors and not economic factors as
suggested by Taylor.
Organizations today have realized the importance and the concept of motivation and the role it plays in
achieving organizational objectives. As resources increasingly become scarce, organizations seek ways to
improve employees' productivity without incurring additional costs. Motivation has provided a way for
employers to increase employee work performance and commitment to the organization without spending a lot
of resources on their employees. In our today‟s society, the prime task of the leaders is to motivate and retain
workers. Motivation is company‟s life-blood. A well-managed company can motivate and retain its employees.
In so doing, he or she has the following competitive advantages: reduced turnover; an increase in productivity;
reduced absenteeism; increased revenue, and improved performance. Furthermore, Yahaya et al. (2012)
concluded that it is very crucial for the employers to provide a good environment for the employees to be
motivated and as well as for boosting up the job satisfaction.
Wijono (1997) has investigated in the central Jawa, Indonesia that there is a significant relationship
between worker‟s motivation and personality and worker‟s job satisfaction. Generally, an employee who is
motivated will try harder to do a good job than one who is not motivated. The level of performance attained is
determined by three interdependent factors; ability, motivation and resources. Ability and motivation are driving
forces of behavior to create the level of performance. For performance level to be high all the factors must be
high. If anyone is low or missing, the performance is affected. The limited numbers of salary reviews in Ghana
7 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

have brought about a situation where there have been persistent expressions of dissatisfaction among workers
(Wijono, 1997).

RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design is quantitative and the population and sampling of this project will focus only on Telecom
Engineering companies in Chad. It will be used random sampling to ensure that the sample represent the
population. Meanwhile, the targets are: managers and the followers with at least two years of experience. The
questionnaires will be adopted from previous studies to ensure the validity. Questionnaires will be distributed in
paper based and online. The collected data will be entered into computer and analysed using SPSS and SEM
(Structural Equation Modelling). SEM will be applied using AMOS software or any other available software.
Structural Model will be conducted to test the hypotheses. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) technique will
be conducted for the measurement Model. Data screening and cleaning will be conducted to prepare the data for
further analysis.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The frameworks will be developing from literature review; figure 1 illustrates the variables that influence the
employees‟ performance through motivation and satisfaction. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
will be used to determine leadership style. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985) tests for the
presence of transformational and transactional leadership characteristics; this whole study revolves around the
importance of leadership and its impact on employees‟ performance. This study also will utilize of the self-
reported Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) developed by Kouzes and Posner (Hatfield, 2011). In this study
we will develop a proposition based on the fact that leadership can be accomplished through various identified
elements which can be used in imparting leadership qualities among the workforce of an organization. We will
try to study their significance and value in Telecom organizations. Those identified elements are satisfaction,
motivation and their mediating between leadership and employees‟ performance will be measured. In
quantitative method the purpose is “to gather, analyses, and measure statistical data from a large sample
selection to see if there is a connection between the different variables (Mostashari, 2009). The fieldwork will be
conduct based on quantitative methods for data collection. The researcher wants to test a theory rather than build
a theory, so a quantitative research design is preferable to a qualitative research design.
To implement the study various dependent, independent and mediating variables will be defined for theoretical
framework. The independent variable is leadership styles and employee performance is a dependent variable.
The reason why these two variables have been chosen is to see the relationship between them, i.e. if leadership
styles is implemented then does it affects the employees‟ performance? To study these two variables their tools
are also identified through which the relationship between the two would be studied. It is evident from the
existing literature that there are identified variables which influence the employee‟s performance. Therefore
leadership styles on employee performance will be measured through employee satisfaction, and motivation.
Employees may not perform well due to their unsatisfaction or lack of motivation this insufficiency may result
into conflict with organizational goal achievement and eventually affecting organizational performance.
Therefore organizations must fill in the gap desired and actual performance (Sahinidis and Bouris, 2008).

Figure 1: Theoretical framework.

8 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

DEVELOPING THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Transactional interactions comprise the bulk of relationships between leaders and followers (Stone et al., 2004).
Yukl (1998) reports that transformational leadership focuses on a leader‟s understanding of their effect on how
followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader and how followers are motivated to do
more than expected (Stone and Patterson, 2005). Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both
high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms. Both theoretical frameworks emphasize a high concern for
people and for production. Servant leadership, however, involves a higher concern for people because the
primary focus of the leader is upon his or her followers (Stone and Patterson, 2005). Servant leadership is a
logical extension of transformational leadership (Stone and Patterson, 2005).
According to Kreitner and Kinicki (1998) motivation is necessary, but not a sufficient contributor to job
performance. Based on Klinsontorn (2007) there is a linear and positive relationship between transformational
leadership and satisfaction. Besides, there is linear relationship between transactional leadership and
satisfaction. Lastly, there is a negative linear relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and Satisfaction with
leader (Klinsontorn, 2007). In addition, Khurram Zafar et al. (2012) also have shown that their study's first
hypothesis (H1) is significantly confirmed that was “The servant leadership style does positively effects on
employees‟ motivation” (Khurram Zafar et al., 2012). Jones (2012b) investigated the effects of servant
leadership on the leader-follower relationship and the resulting impact on the customer focus within the
framework of employee satisfaction, empowerment, organizational culture, and performance. The results of his
study indicate that employing servant leadership is conducive to greater organizational productivity and
increased fiscal stability. He further concluded that the increased profits occurred as a net effect of servant
leadership as mediated through improved job satisfaction, a reduction in employee turnover, and a greater focus
on the customer.
Mayer, Bardes and Piccolo (2008) echoed the sentiment that increased employee performance leads to
greater customer focus when an employee views their manager to exhibit servant leadership skills (McCann et
al., 2014). Amin (2012) declared that there are significant relationships between leadership styles
(transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) and the faculty‟s intrinsic, extrinsic and overall job
satisfaction. However, the leadership styles have slightly stronger relationship with extrinsic job satisfaction as
compared to overall job satisfaction, and the relationship of leadership styles with intrinsic job satisfaction is
relatively least strong. The transformational leadership style, compare to the other two leadership styles
(transactional and laissez-faire), has a strong positive and statistically significant effect on faculty‟s job
satisfaction. Whereas, the laissez-faire leadership style has relatively weak positive significance but statistically
insignificant effect on the job satisfaction of faculty members. The transactional leadership style, on the other
hand, has comparatively weak negative and statistically insignificant effect on faculty‟s job satisfaction (Amin,
2012) (Chaudhry and Husnain, 2012). Transactional leadership, Contingent Reward, Passive/Avoidant
leadership style, Laissez-Faire and Management-by-Exception (Active) & (Passive) have positive, moderate and
significant relationship with Motivation (Chaudhry and Husnain, 2012). Mohammad, Al-Zeaud, & Batayneney
(2011) also found that a significant link exists between leadership behavior and job satisfaction (McCann et al.,
2014).
The study done by many researchers established that, the motivation of employees is essential in improving
employees work performance. Saari and Judge (2004) found evidence that job satisfaction is a predictor of
employee performance and the relationship is stronger for professional jobs. Effectively managing the variables
that influence employee behavior and job satisfaction affects their discretionary efforts and performance levels
(McCann et al., 2014). Shieh et al. proposed that nursing deans and directors who display the contingent reward
leadership style are likely to also be better at meeting individual needs, and thereby producing a higher level of
faculty job satisfaction (Chen, 2004). The research has suggested that the overall job satisfaction has a moderate
impact on the people job performance (Rae, 2008) (Jason A et al., 2015, p.116). People who experience higher
levels of job satisfaction tend to have higher levels of task performance, higher levels of citizenship behavior
and lower levels of counterproductive behavior; it means that the employees' performance will boost up (Jason
A et al., 2015, p.116). Wijono (1997) has investigated in the central Jawa, Indonesia that there is a significant
relationship between worker‟s motivation and personality and worker‟s job satisfaction.
Based on Khurram Zafar et al. (2012), there is a significant relationship between motivation and
employees' performance (“When the intrinsic motivation level of employees increases the work performance of
employees will also increase”). (Khurram Zafar et al., 2012). According to where a person has the ability to
choose and high intrinsic motivation, higher achievement is likely (Vadell and Ewing, 2011).
The researcher Drury (2004) as well concluded that there is a statistically significant, positive, and
substantial relationship between the overall perception of servant leadership and the measure of job satisfaction
in the organization. The findings of Lisbijanto and Budiyanto (2014) showed that there was a significant
influence of servant leadership on job satisfaction, this indicated that the higher value of servant leadership
9 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

would affect the higher value of job satisfaction, since the coefficient was positive (0.352) indicated that the
higher value of servant leadership would lead the higher value of job satisfaction, or vice versa (Lisbijanto and
Budiyanto, 2014). Significantly, motivation leads to job satisfaction through the faculty's perceptions of the
effort-performance probability and moderated by the faculty's ability to perform the job and his or her
expectation of obtaining rewards (Chen, 2004).
Obasan Kehinde and Hassan Banjo (2014) said that there is a higher positive correlation between
transformational leadership with the construct of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement
and organizational citizenship behaviour and there is a negative correlation between Laissez-faire leadership
(Non-transactional leadership) with the construct of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job
involvement and organizational citizenship behavior and finally transactional leadership is negatively correlated
with the construct of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational
citizenship behaviour (Obasan Kehinde and Hassan Banjo, 2014). Ding et al. (2012) found out that the servant
leadership has a significant positive effect on employees‟ satisfaction (Ding et al., 2012).
The employees‟ performance depends on employees‟ satisfaction; this shows that the higher the level of job
satisfaction, the performance of the worker will be the better (Insan et al., 2013). Dvir et al. (2002) showed
transformational leadership has a positive impact on followers' performance. There is significant relationship
between transformational leadership and employee performance. The more managers use transformational
leadership style in their leadership, the more employees' performance is increased. There is significant
relationship between laissez-faire and employee performance, meanwhile, given that the correlation coefficient
between these two variables is -0/460, it can be concluded that this relationship is significantly negative. The
more managers use laissez-faire style in their leadership, the more employees' performance is reduced (Shafie et
al., 2013).The numerous studies about leadership have determined relationships between traits and behaviours
of leaders with the behaviors of employees, whereas ignoring the mediation role of employees‟ motivation
(Shafie et al., 2013).
The very few empirical researches have been conducted and published to examine the relationship
between servant leadership and employees‟ outcomes or performance. The servant leadership theory (Greenleaf,
1977) to supports these hypothesizes that servant leadership style directly and indirectly impacts on the
employees‟ or subordinates‟ behavior, job satisfaction, motivation, performance, outcomes, and commitment
positively and turnover intention, and absenteeism negatively, as well as it has impact on organization‟s
productivity, development, and performance positively. This study (Khurram Zafar et al., 2012) first's
hypothesis is significantly confirmed that was “The servant leadership style does positively effects on
employees‟ motivation” (Khurram Zafar et al., 2012). According to Vadell and Ewing (2011) that the Servant
leader will boost the intrinsic motivation of the workers, in result of that, where a person has the ability to
choose and high intrinsic motivation, higher achievement is likely (Vadell and Ewing, 2011). The servant
leadership model to be considered the most appropriate leadership style for increased organizational
performance and enhanced employees' satisfaction through improved focus on the customer (McCann et al.,
2014).

Based on this discussion the following hypotheses were developed:

H1a: There is a significant relationship between Transformational leadership style and workers' motivation.

H1b: There is a significant relationship between Transformational leadership style and workers' satisfaction.

H1c: There is a significant relationship between Transactional leadership style and employees' motivation.

H1d: There is a significant relationship between Transactional leadership style and workers' satisfaction.

H1e: There is a significant relationship between servant leadership style and employees' motivation.

H1f: There is a significant relationship between servant leadership style and employees' satisfaction.

H1g: There is a significant relationship between Laissez-Faire leadership style and employees' motivation.

H1h: There is a significant relationship between Laissez-Faire leadership style and employees' satisfaction.

H2a: There is a significant relationship between employees' motivation and employees' performance.

H2b: There is a significant relationship between employees' satisfaction and employees' performance.
10 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

H3a: There is a significant relationship between Transformational leadership style and workers' performance.

H3b: There is a significant relationship between Transactional leadership style and workers' performance.

H3c: There is a significant relationship between servant leadership style and employees' performance.

H3d: There is a relationship between Laissez-Faire leadership style and followers' performance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research study is significance in many aspects:
It is hoped that, when the study is successfully completed will serve as a source of policy guidance to the study
organizations and provide necessary incentive for increasing worker productivity. It will help to enlighten the
management of the organization on the need and importance of having effective leaders in the organization. It
will enlighten the employees on their roles and obligations to the leadership in the organization and other related
matters. It will identify the reason why employees react positively to a particular leadership style of a manager
and also aim at discovering what makes workers to be motivated and satisfied with their job.
The significance of this study is basically a definite scope which will help elicit the problems and effect of
different leadership styles. Also, it will assist in highlighting how managers and employees react under
stereotyped condition. The research will help to challenge both the management and workers in the organization
on both the importance attached to increase performance. This study is significant to UTHM and UNDT for
academic purposes. In the same account, it may serve as an impetus to other academics for curriculum
development and research work. Finally, this work will be of immense benefit as aid and guide to future
researcher on leadership styles and employees‟ performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nutshell, we will investigate the relationship existing between leadership styles, employees' motivation,
satisfaction and followers' performance. Meanwhile, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure
the leadership behaviors and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and SPSS will be used as tools of analysis in
this proposed model. Last but not least, successful leaders come in different shapes and sizes. No two are alike,
and no single leadership style is always best. All leaders want to change the status quo, but they use different
means. Some take the lead with their ideas, while others lead with their passion and conviction. Still others lead
by demonstrating courage in the face of risks and the unknown, and some bring about change by serving others.
As a leader you must have the power and influence over others to make them behave within the organizations
standards, and motivate them to do what is expected and instructed for them to do. When individuals do not
respect their leader, the leader is seen as being powerless. Because of all the different opinions that individuals
have, it takes a strong leader to be able to influence individuals to see things their way/organization‟s way.
There are many factors that contribute to being a good leader and the more that we are able to understand the
different styles of leadership and which leadership styles is relevant and suit the best the to an specific
organization. Meanwhile, all leadership styles have a effects (positive or negative) on the employees'
motivation, satisfaction and performance.

REFERENCES

Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E. & Yavas,U. (2007). The effects of perceived management concern for frontline
employees and customers on turnover intentions moderating role of employment status. Journal of service
research, 9(4), pp. 356–371.

Ather, S.M. & Sobhani, F.A. (2007). Managerial leadership: An Islamic perspective. IIUC Studies, 4, pp. 7–24.

Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A. & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four i‟s of transformational
leadership. Journal of European industrial training,15(4).
11 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

Bagraim, J. & Werner, A. (2003). Organisational behaviour: A contemporary South African perspective. Van
Schaik.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto, CA.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), p. 207.

Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications. Simon and Schuster.

Bass, B.M. & Stogdill, R.M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. Theory, Research & Managerial Applications, 3.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A. & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behaviour and organizational performance: The
impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), pp. 15–26.

Chaudhry, A.Q. & Husnain, J. (2012). Impact of transactional and laissez faire leadership style on motivation.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), pp. 258–264.

Chen, H.C. (2004). The relationship between leadership styles and faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Ph.D.
thesis, The University of Utah.

Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., Lu, Q. et al. (2012). Relationship of servant leadership and employee loyalty: The
mediating role of employee satisfaction. iBusiness, 4(03), p. 208.

Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and with job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Ph.D. thesis, Regent University.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal, 45(4), pp. 735–744.

Eskildsen, J.K., Kristensen, K. & Westlund, A.H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the nordic
countries. Employee relations, 26(2), pp. 122–136.
Fiedler & E, F. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative
Science Quarterly, pp. 241–250.

Frost, P. & Robinson, S. (1998). The toxic handler: organizational hero–and casualty. Harvard Business Review,
77(4), pp. 96–106.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist
Press.

Hafeez, M.H., Rizvi, S.M.H., Hasnain, A. & Mariam, A. (2012). Relationship of leadership styles, employees
commitment and organization performance (a study on customer support representatives). European Journal of
Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, (49).

Hatfield, J.M. (2011). Leadership and ethics: A pragmatic exploration among candidates in a doctoral
leadership program. Lincoln Memorial University.

Hayward, B., Amos, T. & Baxter, J. (2008). Employee performance, leadership style and emotional intelligence:
An exploratory study in a South African parastatal. Acta Commercii, 8, pp. 15–26.

Hitt, M., Miller, C. & Colella, A. (2008). Organizational Behavior: A Strategic Approach, Second Edition
Binder Ready Version. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated,
ISBN 9780470418031.
12 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

Insan, A.N., Astuti, E.S., Raharjo, K. & Hamid, D. (2013). The effect of transformational leadership model on
employees‟ job satisfaction and performance at perusahaan listrik negara (pln persero) in south sulawesi,
indonesia. In: Information and Knowledge Management, volume 3, pp. 135–142.

Ismail, A., Yusof, M., Makhtar, N., Deros, B. & Rani, M. (2010). Optimization of temperature level to enhance
worker performance in automotive industry. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(3), p. 360.

Jason A, C., Jeffery A, L. & Wesson, M.J. (2015). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and
commitment in the workplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Jerotich, T. (2013). Influence of headteachers leadership styles on Employees in secondary school access to
their rights In Nandi East Kenya. Ph.D. thesis.

Kehoe, R.R. & Wright, P.M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees¡¯
attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), pp. 366–391.

Khurram Zafar, A., Ibn-E-Waleed, Q. & Sadiya, A. (2012). The effective leadership style in ngos: Impact of
servant leadership style on employees‟ work performance and mediation effect of work motivation.
International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(11), pp. 43–56.

Kinicki, A. (2013). Management: A Practical Introduction, 6th Edition.

Klinsontorn, S. (2007). The influence of leadership styles on organizational commitment and employee
performances. Ph.D. thesis, Nova Southeastern University.

Lisbijanto, H. & Budiyanto (2014). Influence of servant leadership on organization performance through job
satisfaction in employees cooperatives surabaya. International Journal of Business and Management Invention,
3(4), pp. 1–6.

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review,
78(1), pp. 68–78.

Manktelow, J. & Carlson, A. (2011). Leadership styles choosing the right style for the situation.

McCann, J.T., Graves, D. & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and organizational
performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), p. 28.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R. & Anderson, R.D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), pp. 545–559.

Mostashari, E. (2009). Impact of organizational leadership on organizational performance: a study on small

and medium size private companies in three cities of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Iran. Ph.D. thesis, British
University in Dubai.

Mullins, L. (1996). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Pitman, ISBN 9780273615989.

Mullins, L. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Financial Times Prentice Hall, ISBN
9780273724087.

Northouse, P.G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Obasan Kehinde, A. & Hassan Banjo, A. (2014). A test of the impact of leadership styles on employee
performance: A study of department of petroleum resources. International Journal of Management Sciences,
2(3), pp. 149–160.

Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L.C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical
evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), pp. 766–788.

Price, T. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cambridge University Press.

 13 XXX et al,2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13) April 2015, Pages: x-x

Rae, A. (2008). Organizational behavior: an introduction to your life in organizations. Pearson International
edition, Pearson Education, Limited, ISBN 9780136037774.

Rue, L. & Byars, L. (2009). Management: Skills and Application. McGraw-Hill Education, ISBN
9780073381503.

Russell, R.V. (2005). Leadership in recreation. New York: McGraw-Hill., 3rd edition.

Sahinidis, A.G. & Bouris, J. (2008). Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship to employee
attitudes. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(1), pp. 63–76.

Shafie, B., Baghersalimi, S. & Barghi, V. (2013). The relationship between leadership style and employee
performance. Singaporean Journal Of Business Economics, And Management Studies, 2, pp. 21–29.

Sousa-Poza, A. & Sousa-Poza, A.A. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and
determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio- Economics, 29(6), pp. 517–538.

Stone, A.G. & Patterson, K. (2005). The history of leadership focus. In: Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable Proceedings.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in
leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), pp. 349–361.

Thornton, P. (2013). Management Principles and Practices. WingSpan Publishing, ISBN 9781595945006.

Tourish, D. & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality
paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), pp. 147–172.

Vadell, J. & Ewing, C. (2011). Intrinsic motivation and servant leadership: A case for autonomy supporting
work environments in the military. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(19), pp. 249–251.

Wijono, S. (1997). Relationship between work motivation and personality and organizational work performance.
Ph.D. thesis, PhD Thesis. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Yahaya, A., Yahaya, N., Bon, A.T., Ismail, S. & Noor, N.M. (2012). The relationship between big five
personality with work motivation, competitiveness and job satisfaction. Elixir Psychology, 44(a), pp. 7454–7461.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership

theories. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), pp. 285–305.

View publication stats